Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

Does consciousness survive death?

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#81  Postby Rubicon » Nov 15, 2010 9:04 pm

darwin2 wrote:Those are excellent questions but they miss the purpose of this thread. The purpose of this thread is to call attention to the reality that it is possible for consciousness to continue after death and If it does to offer a suggestion of a possible method, THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, to enable a surviving conscious person to explore such a reality if it indeed exists. All of your questions are great but are not relevant to the purpose of this thread.


[1] Your claim is, that it is possible for consciousness to continue after death. True.
[2] My claim is, that it is possible that invisible blue baboons exist on Saturn. Also true.

There exists no evidence of any kind for both claims [1] and [2]. Now why would scientists investigate any of the two probabilities? Do you think [1] should take priority over [2]? If so, why?
Last edited by Rubicon on Nov 15, 2010 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Rubicon
 
Posts: 366
Age: 43

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#82  Postby orpheus » Nov 15, 2010 9:04 pm

darwin2 wrote:
chairman bill wrote:By what mechanism would consciousness survive death? How did consciousness develop an ability to survive death? Does it exist pre-incarnation, or does it develop in an organism until such time as it is able to survive on its own? Where is it whilst we are alive? Where does it go when we are dead? What evolutionary advantage is there to the post-death survival of consciousness?

Rather than start from a position of fanciful imagining, then seeking to make facts fit, it might be better to identify the facts, such as we can know them, then hypothesise & test, developing a theory to account for the data revealed by empirical study. Just a thought.


Those are excellent questions but they miss the purpose of this thread.  The purpose of this thread is to call attention to the reality that it is possible for consciousness to continue after death and If it does to offer a suggestion of a possible method, THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, to enable a surviving conscious person to explore such a reality if it indeed exists.  All of your questions are great but are not relevant to the purpose of this thread.


(bold mine)

You keep saying that, and I wonder if you and many of us are talking at cross purposes. So- what exactly do you mean by "it is possible"? That nobody has proved it impossible? That you've thought of a way it could happen? What?
“A way a lone a last a loved a long the”

—James Joyce
User avatar
orpheus
 
Posts: 7274
Age: 56
Male

Country: New York, USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#83  Postby darwin2 » Nov 15, 2010 9:05 pm

trubble76 wrote:
darwin2 wrote:
rJD wrote:
What utter bollocks! Science has provided the evidence of how the brain appears to be necessary for consciousness, rendering earlier speculation about souls and dualistic existance as unnecessary. As a result of that better understanding, and in the absence of any example of a consciousness without a brain, it is the rational conclusion that a brain appears to be necessary. The question is not whether it is "possible" for consciousness to exist without a brain but whether we have any reason to believe it is.


More bollocks. The idea of life after death is a comforter, a security blanket for those who find the idea of their existance coming to an end upsetting. It takes no courage whatsoever to give up reality in favour of a comforting delusion.


Sir, Science has never demonstrated that it is impossible for consciousness to exist outside the brain. It has done great things in explaining how the brain works. Science tries to brainwash people like you into believing that it is impossible for consciousness to exist without a brain. Obviously they have been successful. I find this brainwashing by fundamental scientists equivalent to fundamental preachers brainwashing their followers into believing that the bible is the written infallible word of God.

It takes courage to seek the truth especially when you have been brainwashed into believing a delusion. It especially takes courage when those in your social environment are totally committed to a specific delusion that you have found to be wrong.


Oh, it's the "well you can't disprove it." argument. It's been done to death a million times. For someone that professes to know about science, I'm surprised that you have been caught out by it. Science does not brainwash, it can't. It wouldn't be science if it washed any brains. Religion on the other hand, is quite well known for it's brainwashing. This too is fairly obvious, but again, it seems to have exposed you.
When you have sought the meaning and consequences of peer-review, you will then see that delusion is not something that taints science as readily as it permeates religion.
Your post is just mudslinging, you are just trotting out old, childish arguments and somehow expect us to be impressed by them, and you called those that require evidence deluded. I think jebus had something to say about planks in eyes that is relevant.


I never stated that those who require evidence are deluded. I did state those who say it is impossible for consciousness to continue after death are deluded.
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#84  Postby byofrcs » Nov 15, 2010 9:09 pm

Did anyone explain how the one year old baby who has just died of some disease knows and understands the "scientific method" ?

The baby is clearly an atheist with no clear belief in any god, heck it can't really talk enough to pray, and I know of no kindergarten/nursery school that focuses on science at such an early age.
In America the battle is between common cents distorted by profits and common sense distorted by prophets.
User avatar
byofrcs
RS Donator
 
Name: Lincoln Phipps
Posts: 7906
Age: 57
Male

Country: Tax, sleep, identity ?
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#85  Postby trubble76 » Nov 15, 2010 9:12 pm

darwin2 wrote:
trubble76 wrote:
darwin2 wrote:

Sir, Science has never demonstrated that it is impossible for consciousness to exist outside the brain. It has done great things in explaining how the brain works. Science tries to brainwash people like you into believing that it is impossible for consciousness to exist without a brain. Obviously they have been successful. I find this brainwashing by fundamental scientists equivalent to fundamental preachers brainwashing their followers into believing that the bible is the written infallible word of God.

It takes courage to seek the truth especially when you have been brainwashed into believing a delusion. It especially takes courage when those in your social environment are totally committed to a specific delusion that you have found to be wrong.


Oh, it's the "well you can't disprove it." argument. It's been done to death a million times. For someone that professes to know about science, I'm surprised that you have been caught out by it. Science does not brainwash, it can't. It wouldn't be science if it washed any brains. Religion on the other hand, is quite well known for it's brainwashing. This too is fairly obvious, but again, it seems to have exposed you.
When you have sought the meaning and consequences of peer-review, you will then see that delusion is not something that taints science as readily as it permeates religion.
Your post is just mudslinging, you are just trotting out old, childish arguments and somehow expect us to be impressed by them, and you called those that require evidence deluded. I think jebus had something to say about planks in eyes that is relevant.


I never stated that those who require evidence are deluded. I did state those who say it is impossible for consciousness to continue after death are deluded.


I have highlighted the things you said that you seem to have forgotten about.
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose,
And nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free.

"Suck me off and I'll turn the voltage down"
User avatar
trubble76
RS Donator
 
Posts: 11205
Age: 44
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#86  Postby Rubicon » Nov 15, 2010 9:14 pm

darwin2 wrote:I never stated that those who require evidence are deluded. I did state those who say it is impossible for consciousness to continue after death are deluded.


I have seen no one claim that it is an impossibility. But other than "Nah nah nah you can't prove it's not possible", I see no reason why you would entertain such a notion. Is there a purpose to this thread?
User avatar
Rubicon
 
Posts: 366
Age: 43

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#87  Postby orpheus » Nov 15, 2010 9:19 pm

darwin2, unless I'm mistaken, Rubicon, trubble76, myself and others have been asking essentially the same question. I think it would help a lot if you would answer any one of us.
“A way a lone a last a loved a long the”

—James Joyce
User avatar
orpheus
 
Posts: 7274
Age: 56
Male

Country: New York, USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: DEATH-A CORRECT SCIENTIFIC APPROACH FOR SURVIVING IT

#88  Postby darwin2 » Nov 15, 2010 9:53 pm

Rubicon wrote:
darwin2 wrote:Third, I never made a claim that I can demonstrate a single well-recorded instance of a "conscious mind" existing absent a physical substrate - brain.

Fourth, I did make the scientific statement that it is possible for consciousness to continue after death. If consciousness continues after death it will exist in whatever form it finds itself in after death. And that Sir is a correct scientific statement.


Rubicon wrote:[Your fourth point is not a scientific statement, it is a blind assertion. If it was in any way scientific, it would have been supported by some form of evidence, however small it may be. You have already admitted that you have none, which renders your statement utterly unscientific. While speculating about after-death consciousness may make for interesting mental gymnastics, there is no reason whatsoever to entertain the notion..



Sir, I have never stated that consciousness continues after death. I stated it is possible that it may exist after death. In previous posts I have stated that I don’t know what form consciousness would have if it survived death. All I can say is the form it gets is the form it will have. And that Sir is a scientific statement.

There is reason to entertain the notion because it is possible one’s consciousness may survive death and it is wise to prepare for such a reality.


Rubicon wrote:[]darwin2 wrote
Sir, Science has never demonstrated that it is impossible for consciousness to exist outside the brain.

Just like science has never demonstrated that there are no invisible blue baboons on Saturn. There is simply no reason whatsoever to investigate such an absurd claim based on the complete lack of evidence pointing in any direction of the kind..


That is a silly irrelevant statement. Who cares if there are no invisible baboons on Saturn? But if one is wise one should care about one’s death because the scientific reality is that one is going to die and it is a scientific reality that consciousness may survivethe death of the physical body. This Sir is a realistic possibility not an absurd one but I do agree it would be a waste of time for science to investigate this possibility now because evidence is totally lacking but science should deal with the possibility that this might occur and should at the very least come up with some reasonable ways to deal with it if it takes place. That would be the ethical thing to do.
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#89  Postby rJD » Nov 15, 2010 10:02 pm

The absurdity of an assertion does not change according to how desirable you find it. The analogy you dismiss as absurd is scientifically no more absurd than yours. You are just emotionally invested in one and not the other.
I was "jd" in RDF, and am still in Rationalia.com

"Wooberish" - a neologism for woo expressed in gibberish, spread the "meme".

Image
User avatar
rJD
RS Donator
 
Name: John
Posts: 2934
Male

Country: God's Own Country
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: DEATH-A CORRECT SCIENTIFIC APPROACH FOR SURVIVING IT

#90  Postby Rubicon » Nov 15, 2010 10:24 pm

darwin2 wrote:Sir, I have never stated that consciousness continues after death. I stated it is possible that it may exist after death. In previous posts I have stated that I don’t know what form consciousness would have if it survived death. All I can say is the form it gets is the form it will have. And that Sir is a scientific statement.

No it isn't, you are making baseless assertions here. First you say that it is merely a possibility that consciousness persists after death. But you know that it "gets the form it will have"? What shape does consciousness have, exactly? How can you possibly make predictions about something you don't even know exists and for which you have zero evidence? How does that work? It certainly isn't science.

There is reason to entertain the notion because it is possible one’s consciousness may survive death(...)

So what? Invisible blue baboons on Saturn is also a probability. My farts becoming conscious entities before they fade away into nothingness is also a possibility. Just because your claim could possibly be true, doesn't lend it any more validity than any other out there claim.

(...)and it is wise to prepare for such a reality.

Why is it wise to prepare for an unproven assertion?

That is a silly irrelevant statement. Who cares if there are no invisible baboons on Saturn?

I think your statement is equally silly. And I care very deeply for unseen celestial primates. However, emotional attachment to an idea doesn't lend it any validity or credibility. Since you cannot provide any more evidence for your claim than I can, why would your statement be less silly than mine?

But if one is wise one should care about one’s death because the scientific reality is that one is going to die and it is a scientific reality that consciousness may survivethe death of the physical body.

No, it is a blind assertion, not scientific reality.

This Sir is a realistic possibility not an absurd one(...)

And other than "Because you say so", why should I not consider yours an absurd statement?

(...)but I do agree it would be a waste of time for science to investigate this possibility now because evidence is totally lacking(...)

So we actually agree that it would be an utter waste of time and resources for scientists to investigate baseless claims?

(...)but science should deal with the possibility that this might occur and should at the very least come up with some reasonable ways to deal with it if it takes place.

Oh, so scientists should investigate the matter? You are not making any sense here.

That would be the ethical thing to do.

Science doesn't deal with ethics, it deals with reality.
User avatar
Rubicon
 
Posts: 366
Age: 43

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#91  Postby chairman bill » Nov 15, 2010 10:28 pm

It is possible that fig leaves are purple and the size of Wales (standard unit of international state measurement) on the planet Zog.
“There is a rumour going around that I have found God. I think this is unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is empirical evidence that they exist.” Terry Pratchett
User avatar
chairman bill
RS Donator
 
Posts: 28350
Male

Country: UK: fucked since 2010
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#92  Postby darwin2 » Nov 16, 2010 12:07 am

orpheus wrote:
darwin2 wrote:
chairman bill wrote:By what mechanism would consciousness survive death? How did consciousness develop an ability to survive death? Does it exist pre-incarnation, or does it develop in an organism until such time as it is able to survive on its own? Where is it whilst we are alive? Where does it go when we are dead? What evolutionary advantage is there to the post-death survival of consciousness?

Rather than start from a position of fanciful imagining, then seeking to make facts fit, it might be better to identify the facts, such as we can know them, then hypothesise & test, developing a theory to account for the data revealed by empirical study. Just a thought.


Those are excellent questions but they miss the purpose of this thread.  The purpose of this thread is to call attention to the reality that it is possible for consciousness to continue after death and If it does to offer a suggestion of a possible method, THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, to enable a surviving conscious person to explore such a reality if it indeed exists.  All of your questions are great but are not relevant to the purpose of this thread.


(bold mine)

You keep saying that, and I wonder if you and many of us are talking at cross purposes. So- what exactly do you mean by "it is possible"? That nobody has proved it impossible? That you've thought of a way it could happen? What?


Possible means it could take place. Yes I thought of a way it could happen. I die and find myself conscious in an after death reality.
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#93  Postby darwin2 » Nov 16, 2010 12:12 am

byofrcs wrote:Did anyone explain how the one year old baby who has just died of some disease knows and understands the "scientific method" ?

The baby is clearly an atheist with no clear belief in any god, heck it can't really talk enough to pray, and I know of no kindergarten/nursery school that focuses on science at such an early age.


Those who believe in reincarnation can give a possible answer. There is a lot of anecdotal information on reincarnation but unfortunately there is no scientific evidence to support it.
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#94  Postby darwin2 » Nov 16, 2010 12:16 am

trubble76 wrote:
darwin2 wrote:
trubble76 wrote:

Oh, it's the "well you can't disprove it." argument. It's been done to death a million times. For someone that professes to know about science, I'm surprised that you have been caught out by it. Science does not brainwash, it can't. It wouldn't be science if it washed any brains. Religion on the other hand, is quite well known for it's brainwashing. This too is fairly obvious, but again, it seems to have exposed you.
When you have sought the meaning and consequences of peer-review, you will then see that delusion is not something that taints science as readily as it permeates religion.
Your post is just mudslinging, you are just trotting out old, childish arguments and somehow expect us to be impressed by them, and you called those that require evidence deluded. I think jebus had something to say about planks in eyes that is relevant.


I never stated that those who require evidence are deluded. I did state those who say it is impossible for consciousness to continue after death are deluded.


I have highlighted the things you said that you seem to have forgotten about.


I have no idea what you are talking about. Please clarify.
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#95  Postby darwin2 » Nov 16, 2010 12:34 am

Rubicon wrote:
darwin2 wrote:I never stated that those who require evidence are deluded. I did state those who say it is impossible for consciousness to continue after death are deluded.


I have seen no one claim that it is an impossibility. But other than "Nah nah nah you can't prove it's not possible", I see no reason why you would entertain such a notion. Is there a purpose to this thread?


Yes, there is a purpose to this thread. The purpose is to make it clear that it is possible for consciousness to continue after death and to suggest a correct scientific strategy for dealing with this new reality if it exists. I write this because I am tired of atheists mocking this possibility and I am tired of the BS I see in many organized religions that address this issue and frighten their followers. I feel my position on this issue is realistic. There are many people in the world that are frightened of dying because they have no idea of what is going to happen or are scared that some god is going to condemn them to hell for all eternity. I feel if science adopted my position they could help these people to deal with death and put these fundamental religious fanatics in their place by clearly showing how stupid their doctrines on the afterlife are.
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#96  Postby darwin2 » Nov 16, 2010 12:37 am

orpheus wrote:darwin2, unless I'm mistaken, Rubicon, trubble76, myself and others have been asking essentially the same question. I think it would help a lot if you would answer any one of us.


And what question is that?
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#97  Postby darwin2 » Nov 16, 2010 12:43 am

rJD wrote:The absurdity of an assertion does not change according to how desirable you find it. The analogy you dismiss as absurd is scientifically no more absurd than yours. You are just emotionally invested in one and not the other.


I state that it is possible for consciousness to survive death. I also state that it is possible for consciousness to end with death. These are objectively correct statements. How can you state they are absurd?
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#98  Postby Goldenmane » Nov 16, 2010 12:57 am

darwin2 wrote:
Goldenmane wrote:What the fuck is "consciousness"?

Define it, then we'll talk.


Are you aware that you asked me this question "What the fuck is "consciousness"? ]Are you aware that you made the statement "Define it, then we'll talk?"

If you answer yes to both questions, you have my definition of consciousness..


That wasn't a rigorous definition. It was specious hand-waving. That shit went out of fashion about mid-last-century.

Apply some fucking rigour to your formulation of ideas. Define, clearly, "consciousness".

I don't think you can. The reason I don't think you can is because it's only just beginning to really start to become clear (through the studies pursued by neuroscientists of various kinds) how to properly frame the appropriate questions, and I've seen no indication that you understand anything about the last couple of decades or so of such work.

Good luck. If you can clearly define consciousness and give compelling evidence to support the notion that it is in no way tied to the physical processes of the brain, and in fact continues after death, I'm fairly sure you're going to change the entire world.

I don't, however, think this is going to happen.
-Geoff Rogers

@Goldenmane3

http://goldenmane.onlineinfidels.com/
User avatar
Goldenmane
 
Posts: 2383

Print view this post

Re: Death - a correct scientific approach for surviving it

#99  Postby Steve » Nov 16, 2010 1:03 am

If consciousness does not end then what dies? And if consciousness does not end then what would you suggest we do differently? Are you suggesting we drink the poison and die, for example?
As your desire is, so is your will.
As your will is, so is your deed.
As your deed is, so is your destiny
Blue Mountain Center of Meditation
User avatar
Steve
RS Donator
 
Posts: 6908
Age: 66
Male

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: DEATH-A CORRECT SCIENTIFIC APPROACH FOR SURVIVING IT

#100  Postby darwin2 » Nov 16, 2010 1:10 am

Rubicon wrote:
darwin2 wrote:Sir, I have never stated that consciousness continues after death. I stated it is possible that it may exist after death. In previous posts I have stated that I don’t know what form consciousness would have if it survived death. All I can say is the form it gets is the form it will have. And that Sir is a scientific statement.

No it isn't, you are making baseless assertions here. First you say that it is merely a possibility that consciousness persists after death. But you know that it "gets the form it will have"? What shape does consciousness have, exactly? How can you possibly make predictions about something you don't even know exists and for which you have zero evidence? How does that work? It certainly isn't science.

There is reason to entertain the notion because it is possible one’s consciousness may survive death(...)

So what? Invisible blue baboons on Saturn is also a probability. My farts becoming conscious entities before they fade away into nothingness is also a possibility. Just because your claim could possibly be true, doesn't lend it any more validity than any other out there claim.

(...)and it is wise to prepare for such a reality.

Why is it wise to prepare for an unproven assertion?

That is a silly irrelevant statement. Who cares if there are no invisible baboons on Saturn?

I think your statement is equally silly. And I care very deeply for unseen celestial primates. However, emotional attachment to an idea doesn't lend it any validity or credibility. Since you cannot provide any more evidence for your claim than I can, why would your statement be less silly than mine?

But if one is wise one should care about one’s death because the scientific reality is that one is going to die and it is a scientific reality that consciousness may survivethe death of the physical body.

No, it is a blind assertion, not scientific reality.

This Sir is a realistic possibility not an absurd one(...)

And other than "Because you say so", why should I not consider yours an absurd statement?

(...)but I do agree it would be a waste of time for science to investigate this possibility now because evidence is totally lacking(...)

So we actually agree that it would be an utter waste of time and resources for scientists to investigate baseless claims?

(...)but science should deal with the possibility that this might occur and should at the very least come up with some reasonable ways to deal with it if it takes place.

Oh, so scientists should investigate the matter? You are not making any sense here.

That would be the ethical thing to do.

Science doesn't deal with ethics, it deals with reality.


I stated "But if one is wise one should care about one’s death because the scientific reality is that one is going to die and it is a scientific reality that consciousness may survive the death of the physical body" and you replied "No, it is a blind assertion, not scientific reality." Jeepers creepers, great balls of fire, Holy Mackerel! I didn't realize it was not a scientific reality that we die. Too bad you didn't read one of my previous responses to a poster who made the same assertion as you just made. It would have saved you a lot of embarrassment!

Then you state science doesn't deal with ethics, it deals with reality. I have a strong feeling that scientists would disagree with you on this. However if you are correct and a scientist stole another scientist's work or secretly screwed his best friend's wife or extorted the funds from some science club, science would not give a damn about these actions because science doesn't deal with ethics. I know our planet is in deep trouble but if you are correct it is a lot worse than I thought.
darwin2
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: George Killoran
Posts: 190

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest